87ef129de5
Follow-up to reading the archive out of `GroupSignedEvent` rather than rebuilding it from rows. The two sources do not hold the same thing, and one place where they differ reaches the archive. `ChatMessage.applyInnerEvent` supersedes a translation chunk: retranslating a passage changes the text and so the event id, so the arm drops the row it replaces -- newest by the timestamp the group signed at, id breaking a tie. The record does not, and should not: a signature is the group's statement and discarding one is not that table's business. So a passage translated three times leaves one row and three events. While the archive was rebuilt from rows that difference was invisible, because a sender simply had nothing but the group's current answer to each passage. Read from the record it is not: measured on a seeded room, one retranslation leaves one row and puts **two** payloads in the archive, and it compounds -- every draft a group ever signed would travel in every archive it ever sends, for as long as the room exists. **The rule is the applying arm's, restated rather than approximated.** An archive that shipped one translation as current while the recipient settled on another would have both validly signed and nothing downstream to notice they disagree, so `currentTranslationsOnly` groups by `(translationChapterId, chunkId)` and keeps the maximum by `(createdAt, id)` -- the same comparison, spelled the same way. Dropping the drafts is safe precisely *because* the recipient applies that rule too. This is not what keeps them correct; it is what stops them being sent work they would discard on arrival. Grouped per passage rather than per chapter, or retranslating one passage would take every other passage's translation with it. A translation naming no passage is left alone rather than lumped in with the rest: it is unappliable either way, and letting one stand in for a whole passage would let a malformed event suppress a good one. Three tests, and all three fail if the filter is removed: a retranslated passage leaves one row, two recorded events and one payload; three translations signed in the same second settle on the same id the row keeps, which is what pins the tiebreak to the applying arm's; and two passages each keep their own, which is what a group-by-chapter mistake would fail. Two documentation corrections alongside it. docs/member-archive.md said "a retranslated passage archives once" as a property of the rows, which stopped being true the moment the record became the source -- it now says what makes it true again. And `GroupSignedEvent.verifies()` said a false means the row's columns have drifted from the event they came from. That is the reading worth acting on and it is not the only one: a room never derived from its group's key signs as the bare threshold key rather than as its own id, so a perfectly good event there fails and cannot be made to pass, the key it would need being absent from the row and unreachable from one. 498 jvm tests and 297 android unit tests pass. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
mantra docs
Notes on the parts of this app whose behaviour is not recoverable by reading the code alone — where the reasoning lives in a protocol, a failure mode that is silent, or a decision that looked arbitrary and was not.
| document | covers |
|---|---|
| shared-key-ceremony.md | ChillDKG over NIP-17: the rounds, the approval gates, the chat transcript, participant ordering |
| shared-key-derivation.md | deriving further keys from the group's threshold key with FROST tweaks — why not BIP32, why no chain code, and the one rule that must not be broken |
| frost-batch-signing.md | signing several events in one ceremony — why one nonce can never cover two messages, and the phased schema, wire and UI work that follows from it |
| marmot-membership.md | how members join an MLS group, and the epoch race that makes a missing member look like a successful invite |
| member-archive.md | handing a member added after the work was done the group's signed record — why the events are not on the wire at all, and why the room's id is enough to verify them |
| marmot-direct-messages.md | a one-to-one message inside a group as a stock NIP-59 gift wrap — what its MIP-03 carve-out costs, why the sender cannot read their own, and the one query that would broadcast it |
| mls-skipped-keys.md | why a group event that arrives a moment late is dropped for good, which flows trigger it, the quartz fix, and the partial mitigation in this app |
| long-running-sync.md | the chat subscriptions that stay open instead of pulling once per screen — why the request queue could not simply hold one, and how the group filter follows the room list |
| dead-code.md | code in the sync and relay stack that nothing calls, why each piece is still there, and which of it is a bug rather than a leftover |
| jvm-target.md | what desktop support cost, phased — why the native chain was already done, why an empty source set in our phoenix fork was the real blocker, and why DAO tests need none of it |
Start with the ceremony if you are new to this area; the Marmot notes all assume it. Read the skipped-keys note before debugging any "the other device never got it" report — it is silent, and it looks like every other kind of delivery failure. The sync note stands alone, and the dead-code inventory reads as a follow-up to it. The batch-signing note is a phased plan that has been built: read it after the derivation note, whose one rule is the same one it is built around. The member archive note is a phased plan that has not been built, and reads as the membership note's unanswered half: what a member who joins late can be given, and the one thing they cannot. The jvm-target note is unrelated to all of them: it is a build and packaging story.